Talk:Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Poster dispute

Recently there has been a disagreement between Aspects and myself about whether one of the following two posters should be used as the article's main visual representation: [1][2].

My stance is that poster 1 (widely considered to be one of the major pieces of visual identification for the film, as it released alongside the final trailer and was majorly used throughout the final stretch of its marketing run); while theirs seems to stem from the fact the poster does not indicate a straight date (the poster indicates a Christmas release), stating poster 2 (one of many character posters, and in some way a variant of the main poster, depicting Miles and indicating the film's December 14 release) works better as visual representation of the article. This is something we disagree on, since I think a fixed date (or lack thereof) shouldn't put one poster above the other.

Based on this disagreement, and per WP:BRD, we believe a consensus should be arrived to before any further changes are made. Madyoshi01 (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The documentation of Template:Infobox_film says to use "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster". The poster with the date on it appears to be the Theatrical release poster and concurs with what the guidelines recommend, a guideline established after many similar disagreements in the past. You can argue that a poster with many Spider-people on it is more visually interesting than a poster that gives sole attention to the main character Miles Morales, but it is not the theatrical release poster. (The poster without a date would seem to be an earlier teaser poster, as it does not include a final date. The date is not the point unto itself.) It is possible that perhaps you could gain WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to use a different poster but ultimately there might be a better way to improve this encyclopedia article. You might consider requesting an image to improve the visual representation of the film and its design in Production section, perhaps an image the characters to properly explain and enhance reader understanding of the different art styles used by each character, or something like that? -- 109.78.201.33 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Music of Spider-Verse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Music of Spider-Verse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Spider-Verse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Miles article?

I noticed Gwen already has an article, so wouldn't it make sense for Miles to have one? HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a draft currently at Draft:Miles Morales (Spider-Verse). The article on Gwen is pretty well-developed, you are welcome to work on Miles' draft to take it to a point where it could be moved to mainspace. Take into account that will need a lot of commentary and analysis by secondary sources and from production, not plot descriptions and character biographies. —El Millo (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"Enter the spiderverse" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Enter the spiderverse has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30 § Enter the spiderverse until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"Spider-Man: A New Universe" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Spider-Man: A New Universe has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30 § Spider-Man: A New Universe until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Listcruft 2: Nabox boogaloo

Editors continue to do things without thinking about it just because other articles do things without thinking about it. See WP:NAVBOX "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article." I restate my ongoing objection to even more low relevance being added without any consensus.

People keep adding a long list of low relevance tables then hiding them inside yet another table,[3] that nearly half of Wikipedia editors will never see anyway. It has been years but few editors are actually willing to even try to explain why they want to do this or explain how it actually improves the page or why they are so happy to ignore the rules about WP:HIDDEN content. But I repeat myself, see Talk:Spider-Man:_Into_the_Spider-Verse/Archive_1#List_Cruft

The awards navboxes might be somewhat relevant to the List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse but only a few high relevance navboxes are actually needed here. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The previous discussion you’re linking just reads like you incessantly complaining about navboxes *to yourself* as opposed to a forged consensus on reducing navboxes. Any navbox the page in question is linked on is included. I do not see what is low relevance about including navboxes towards the awards the film has received. Just frankly comes off to me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts 14:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Until recently all this listcruft was in the Accolades list article, but it was removed from there too. [4] BIDI has been used as an excuse to add these navboxes everywhere, but there has never been any such requirement. These hidden tables are never shown to nearly half of all users, and the WP:NAVBOX guidelines make it clear that they are not required. That they are immediately hidden goes to show how low relevance they are and editors have been unwilling to explain discuss and gain consensus to include this listcruft. Editors have been persistently unwilling to argue for local consensus that the guidelines clearly say they need. The past discussion was brought to WP:MOSFILM where they even grudgingly acknowledge that there is no requirement to include all the hidden navboxes.

Please stop for a moment and ask yourself if these hidden tables really server any benefit to even the fraction of desktop based encyclopedia readers who ever get shown them? -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The complaint brought to Project film [[5]]. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, you brought this complaint up five years ago and never garnered any consensus. The onus would be on you, who is asserting low relevance, to convince a majority group of people that excessive and hidden navboxes are superfluous and aren’t meriting inclusion. You made your bold removal of them, was reverted so now it’s needing discussion, either at the MOS for navboxes or at WP:FILM, but this standard can’t be arbitrarily applied to this one page. Rusted AutoParts 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Rusted_AutoParts said in their edit summary No the onus is on you to gain a consensus before removing standard page content That's the thing, it really isn't.
The guidelines at WP:NAVBOX expressly state that these are not standard and not required. The guidelines: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not required doesn’t immediate equal not allowed. People have clearly considered them necessarily if in the five years since you first began talking about this they still remain or get added back. Rusted AutoParts 15:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if people believe a few Navoboxes are useful where is the limit? How many is too many? People seem to think it is fine to add an arbitrarily list of of awards, but also think it is not relevant enough to actually show any of it. These awards Navboxes fail WP:HIDDEN and they fail WP:UNDUE but people who keeping add Navboxes seem to love lists more than they care about the first principles of making an encyclopedia article that is actually useful to readers.

You're arguing for the inclusion of 17 hidden tables, few of which are actually even mentioned in the Accolades section of this article (so about half of them already fail BIDI). -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems only 3 of the awards Navboxes even manage to pass BIDI. They aren't mentioned in the article body or Accolades section, that makes all the other hidden tables of links not relevant even by the low standards of the BIDI section of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Rereading the guidelines I may have misunderstood BIDI, but relevance still matters and only 3 of those awards are even mentioned anywhere in this article and therefore at most only 3 are WP:DUE a Navbox. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. You really need to discuss the issue before continuing to enforce edits like this. Rusted AutoParts 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

What part do you want to discuss? "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited" Do you really disagree with the WP:Navbox guidelines? Do you really believe all these hidden tables are necessary or relevant? I firmly believe the burden is on you to show relevance for including these not on me to justify excluding a bunch of low relevance hidden tables that most users are not ever even shown. I made an entirely different edit and clearly explained my logic to set limit and a floor on this, my personal preference would be to not include them at all. What criteria of relevance would you set? What limit if any would you place on these Navboxes? Please do explain and discuss your logic and what you think should be done. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead section problem

To IP 109, I'm aware you reverted a rather substantial amount of the lead sentences I added because of a potentially WP:PUFF sentence, "one of the greatest superhero films of all time" when I added it only because such words are already cited at least once, and you did not remove the sentence "one of the best animated films of the 21st century". I'm especially annoyed in that you reverted another sentence I added to highlight an entire section's worth on the film's impact/influence, which is too substantial to be ignored. Do you have a solution to support my intentions without puffery? Carlinal (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to give it a bit more thought and consider it more carefully. My initial reaction was that it already says this is one of the greatest animated films of the 21st century. Being one of the greatest superhero films of all time" seems like minor praise by comparison (like how when a film has won an Academy Award it doesn't really seem necessary to highlight that it has won a BAFTA).

With hindsight I was a little hasty removing the part that said it "was praised by filmmakers and animation peers, with its aesthetics influencing subsequent animated productions" that's a fair summary of the Legacy section. I have general concerns about trimming bloat and trying to keep the WP:LEAD concise but apologize for my haste and I will restore that part. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I also want to add per MOS:CITELEAD that there's no reason for a citation to be there and moving it to somewhere appropriate while leaving the lead as is would remain justified. I'll fix that shortly. Carlinal (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. -- 109.78.203.213 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Again I felt like it was hyperbole and removed it from the lead, but then I remembered I'd agreed to it before so I restored it but with the reference. MOS:CITELEAD doesn't require citations in the lead but it doesn't prohibit them either so I've restored the citation in the lead section for clarity.

I still have concerns about WP:PUFF and WP:UNDUE. I really do wish these "greatest" statements had {{more sources}} than just BBC (I have concerns that this claim is pulled from the WP:RSHEADLINES and seems to talking about the second film more than the first film) and Indiewire (listed as 5th greatest, Spirited Away is #1). -- 109.78.192.78 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Street fighting turning on 68.193.83.108 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)